Another Tack: What if his name was Bibi?

I wonder whether reactions to Olmert's verdict would have been remotely similar had the defendant been named Netanyahu.

Olmert, Netanyahu 370.
(photo credit:Moti Milrod/Haaretz/Reuters)

I couldn’t help rubbing my eyes in disbelief at the joyful celebrations which
greeted former premier Ehud Olmert’s acquittal in two corruption cases and the
simultaneous belittling of his conviction on a third – what his cheerleaders
portrayed as the “minor” matter of breach of trust.

I couldn’t help
wondering whether the same reactions could have been remotely conceivable had
the defendant been named Binyamin Netanyahu.

I vividly recalled when the
“breach of trust” innuendo was hurled accusingly at Netanyahu, not after a
courtroom verdict but after the prosecution admitted it had no case to at all
take to trial. That in no way prevented a raging tempest from ominously swirling
around Netanyahu.

In diametrical discrepancy to the Olmert phenomenon,
there were no orchestrated (or other) compunctions about attempts to bring down
a serving prime minister at the outset of his term.

Nobody dared suggest
adoption of the French law which shields PMs in office from investigation and
prosecution. In fact, keeping Netanyahu from his weighty duties was deemed a
laudable objective.

If anything, the prevailing bon ton dictated that it
was a darn shame Bibi wasn’t hauled off to court, summarily tried, convicted and
ignominiously booted out. To hear trendsetters, that was what he deserved
because the prosecutors, who said estimated that they didn’t have the goods on
him, nevertheless rebuked him for supposed intentions which they admitted they
couldn’t prove. That alone sufficed to pillory Netanyahu.

And woe to
anyone who dared not toe the line.

During my many years in political
journalism, I faced often ruthless, crude and undisguised pressure. It was
little wonder. I persistently rubbed against the ideological grain of the
then-left-wing Jerusalem Post, inevitably to my own detriment. But nothing was
as highhanded and hostile as what I encountered in April 1997, after the
prosecution declined to charge Netanyahu (for allegedly appointing Ronnie Bar-On
as attorney-general with the understanding that he’d go soft on Arye Deri, who’d
in turn support Netanyahu on Hebron).

The Bibi-baiting media spun the
spin with unprecedented gusto and embellished its own conjectures with
incomparable relish. The rampant innuendo spawned ever-more speculation and
unbridled insinuations were presented as an airtight case. Imagine the
frustration when, despite all this, the prosecution concluded that there just
wasn’t any real evidence to warrant so much as an indictment.

In no time
bitter disappointment burgeoned into a vituperative backlash. Anyone who craved
a modicum of popularity and three seconds of limelight joined the Bibi-bashing
chorus. Meretz leader Yossi Sarid sought to comfort the lamenting Left by
solemnly pronouncing Netanyahu’s government dead.

That inspired me to
write a Friday opinion piece, arguing that “Sarid may have only given voice to
his wishful thinking. He did not check for vital signs.” I stayed
deliberately away from value judgment, opting to coolly analyze the balance of
power, forces at play and Netanyahu’s survival prospects.

In hindsight, I
can now note with satisfaction that I was dead right in my every prediction. But
at the time, my forecasts were received with open dismay by my bosses. The
upshot was that entire paragraphs were added without my foreknowledge or
permission to my copy, under my byline.

And so, as far as my readers were
concerned, I had concurred that “a serious and criminal breach of trust had
occurred,” even if it didn’t ripen into a charge, never mind a conviction. My
failure “to cooperate” and vent about the unproven breach of trust became an
indelible blemish on my reputation. How could anyone of minimally upright
character refuse to denounce and revile Netanyahu?

The visceral de rigueur
animosity against Netanyahu became eerily reminiscent of the organized loathing
in George Orwell’s 1984 for Big Brother’s archantagonist, who was castigated
regularly on the official “telescreen” daily “Two Minutes of Hate” feature, till
his very image evoked hisses and reactions of “mingled fear and
disgust.”

Considering that Netanyahu – without having ever been tried –
couldn’t escape censure and scorn, it’s all the more mind-blowing that Olmert is
feted after he was found guilty on one charge and escaped conviction on the
others, not because the judges contested the facts but because of their
subjective impression about his intent.

Israeli jurists, it needs be
stressed, pride themselves on their extrasensory psychic aptitudes.

Thus
Margalit Har-Shefi, just 19-yearsold at the time, was arrested after the Rabin
assassination in 1995 because she was Yigal Amir’s classmate and
friend. The prosecution alleged she knew of his intentions yet failed to
phone the police. Eventually she was tried, convicted and imprisoned for
the rarely prosecuted offense of “not preventing a crime.”

Throughout,
she vehemently denied advance knowledge about the assassination. The
majority of judges, apparently having accessed her innermost consciousness,
ruled otherwise. It was her word against their opinion. Although there wasn’t a
shred of evidence against her, she became a despised public enemy.

Both
former Shin Bet chiefs Carmi Gillon and Ami Ayalon would years later own up that
she wasn’t guilty. But our opinionmolders couldn’t care less, not even when
Ayalon boasted in 2007 that he possessed “intelligence information” clearly
establishing that “Har-Shefi didn’t imagine what Amir planned. I know – I was
Shin Bet head.” Still, pleas to accord her a retrial were flatly rejected and
media hotshots bristled resentfully at the very suggestion that Har-Shefi might
be exonerated.

Our judiciary’s presumption to know with preternatural
penetrating infallibility what evil lurks (or doesn’t) in the hearts of men is
dangerous not only regarding the rights of politically disliked defendants. It’s
also dangerous to the well-being of our civic society, our democracy and such
notions as equality before the law.

In Olmert’s cases, the judges don’t
dispute that money changed hands between American businessman Morris Talansky
and Olmert or that he double-billed charities on his air journeys (this isn’t
innuendo but boldly asserted in the verdict). However, they didn’t
ascribe to him “criminal intent,” even if illicit ties and illicit practices
existed.

Here we willy-nilly enter the realm of psychoanalysis rather
than legal reasoning.

Hypothetically, we might submit that there needn’t
be something inherently felonious in the spectacle of a leading politico
accepting envelopes stuffed with cash. At the same time, however, this state of
affairs is hardly condonable from the vantage point of civic hygiene. Any bigwig
in public life owes us more elevated ethics.

If on the civic plane we
acquiesce to paint Olmert as a latter-day Dreyfus, then we foolhardily regress
into the bad old days when higher-ups behaved badly while pretending not to see,
know or comprehend.

Hence it’s remarkable that the very same people who
fumed when Netanyahu wasn’t tried, now fume because Olmert was tried. The very
same forces who tried to remove Netanyahu now claim that the scandals that
surrounded Olmert unjustly led to his political downfall. They conveniently omit
mention of the fact that his approval ratings were down to 2 or 3 percent
(depending on the survey quoted).

That was in early 2007, a year and a
half before he stepped down under corruption’s darkening clouds. Already in mid-
March 2007, prime minister Ehud Olmert, attending a Kadima function in Petah
Tikva, intoned dramatically: “I am an unpopular premier.”

At that point
he wasn’t yet dogged by legal travails. His chagrin then was aroused by opinion
polls, which he depicted as truncheons used to bludgeon him and illegitimately
wrest his power away.

To win pity and/or grudging admiration for his
tenacity-in-the-face-of-adversity, Olmert posed desperately as the poor
persecuted underdog, who despite unparalleled rock-bottom repute, remains
steadfastly unintimidated and a committed public servant. He altruistically
pledged to ignore the public’s judgment and “continue to serve” said public
despite its wishes.

Olmert’s foremost obligation was to not abandon his
“workplace,” as he put it. The only trifling detail expediently
overlooked is that the voters were his bosses and that his bosses had ceased to
appreciate their employee’s dishonorable professional record and sloppy
skills.

Glitches like the 2006 Lebanese fiasco, the long-term menace from
the Gaza Strip which he recklessly helped vacate, the neglect of civilians North
and South and the brutal cavalry charge he ordered on settlers in Amona, soured
widespread evaluations of Olmert’s competence. And on top of all that hovered
arrogance even in the aftermath of blatant failure.

With disengagement
then still fresh in people’s minds, many recalled how Olmert energetically
peddled Oslo’s derivative folly: “Disengagement will bring better defense,
greater security, significantly more prosperity and much joy to all who live in
the Mideast.... Together we will move forward in the direction of forging new
relationships, improved mutual understanding and enhanced trust. We will sit
with our neighbors, talk to them, help them, cooperate with them, become their
partners, so that the Middle East will indeed transform into what it was
supposed to be to begin with – the Garden of Eden upon this earth.”

Not
only wasn’t he the least bit contrite, but Olmert vigorously concocted a
disengagement sequel for Judea and Samaria, which he dubbed
“realignment.” It was to bring the dubious bounties of Gaza’s
disengagement to the elongated eastern flank of our densest population centers.
Later Olmert outdid even Ehud Barak’s egregious concession offers at Camp David,
only to be similarly rebuffed by Ramallah.

But above all, ordinary
Israelis had enough of Olmert not because he was supposedly defamed and
railroaded by unprincipled political foes but because he plainly demoralized his
constituents.

It was hard a few years back to forget his June 9, 2005,
declaration to the Israel Policy Forum at New York’s posh Waldorf-Astoria: “We
are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of
winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies.”

www.sarahhonig.com

Your comment must be approved by a moderator before being published on JPost.com.
Disqus users can post comments automatically.

Comments must adhere to our Talkback policy. If you believe that a comment has breached the Talkback policy, please press the flag icon to bring it to the attention of our moderation team.